Originally Posted by Roey Haque
Thank you for your clarification. So as I understand it, it's kind of like working backwards? You are declaring a premise as the absolute truth, and then rationalizing it by any means necessary.

Because if we DO partake in research and not just follow society, as you say, then we find inconsistencies in religion which cannot be explained. (read Tonmoy's post for example to see a list of intra-faith contradictions). Because when you shine a historical and geographical lens on any religion, you can explain away how the ideas came to be.

Now back to my original point, and purpose for creating the thread, at least the dharmic faiths tell me to be on a spiritual quest, and make up my mind. While the abrahamic faiths tell me that to tow the party line or else face hell fire. Yes, seeking is allowed like you say (through later interpretations I assume, because Koran is very clear on punishment for those who disbelieve), as long as you reach the same conclusion. But we cannot call that seeking then, if you are not willing to have your mind changed.

you can do whatever you want. It is your life at the end of the day. People say their spiritual experiences lie in smoking weed or tripping on acid. Or worshiping their ancestors and calling out to spirits. All this could be a so called spiritual quest.

But will this lead to any truth? What is your standard for Truth?

I think the whole punishment thing bugs people. To just "oh yeah people disbelieve go to hellfire" is throwing red herrings, just because a belief system says that doesn't mean it isn't true. Islam for e.g. is merely based on the foundation that God exists and Prophets have been sent to guide Mankind. Rules and regulations that consist within a religion is a means to get closer with God.

People like to throw the whole idea of religious people trying to rationalise everything in regards to their belief but ironically non-believers do the exact same thing. The thing is that they themselves don't realise it.

Originally Posted by Yankees
I disagree with that. Most muslims live within muslim societies. If aything, it's the other way around. Society plays a heavy hand in a Muslims belief system. And btw, nobody is a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic. That kind of dismissive tone only weakens your position. A healthy dose of skepticism does the world a lot of good.

I don't disagree with you. Socialisation does play an affect for both belief and disbelief. That is why I am saying to be cognizant of the fact that you aren't just believing in what you believe in just because of the society and the people around you.

Dismissive tone? Dose of skepticism is fine.I never said not to be a skeptic.

I am addressing people who play the skeptic card to an extreme to the point they question if they even existing at the moment or not in some alternate universe etc etc. Imam al-Ghazali was so skeptic about existence and life that he fell ill. Then he wrote books about his experience and journey to Truth.

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
I am addressing people who play the skeptic card to an extreme to the point they question if they even existing at the moment or not in some alternate universe etc etc.

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
Imam al-Ghazali was so skeptic about existence and life that he fell ill. Then he wrote books about his experience and journey to Truth.

This part is very interesting to me. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine how that can happen. Let me ask you this, I know you are very well versed in Islam. From a philosophical pov, is there one truth? Or many truths?

__________________
#PrivatizeBCB
#PrivatizeBFF
The end of Rahim will mark a new great beginning for the complacency free Bangladesh!

Originally Posted by Roey Haque
This part is very interesting to me. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine how that can happen. Let me ask you this, I know you are very well versed in Islam. From a philosophical pov, is there one truth? Or many truths?

I am not well versed in Islam but i do run a Muslim podcast so I know the basics.

By default you cannot have multiplicity of Truths because aspects of one Truth will contradict another Truth, kinda like how you cannot have multiple Gods or else it causes chaos and disorder.

Islamically speaking though there are bits and bobs of Truth in other religions. Islam is one of the few religions that explain why other religions exist. Prophets were sent to other nations and the Message got corrupted over time. Even people can argue Buddha was a Prophet in Islam by the name Dhul Kilf.

Islam isn't an exclusive religion per say because the end goal is to get closer to God the correct way (i.e. The Sunnah). Someone who lived in the forest who believed God is One their whole life without being exposed to Islamic scripture will be saved on the Day of Judgement.

Islamically speaking everyone has a fitrah and people will come to Truth going off their fitrah alone. Don't need revelation per say.

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
Islamically speaking though there are bits and bobs of Truth in other religions. Islam is one of the few religions that explain why other religions exist. Prophets were sent to other nations and the Message got corrupted over time. Even people can argue Buddha was a Prophet in Islam by the name Dhul Kilf.

^Ok, well, that is consistent with your belief. Each prophet comes and digests all truths before him and unifies into a singular truth. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith(mormonism), Mirza Ghulam (ahmadiya). Linear time. I get it.

I think the other view could also be entertained, that there is only the now,eternal time,not linear. And you can choose any God that you wish that gives you meaning. Or if you absolutely won't budge from monotheism, then I can simply say that one God split himself/herself into many parts and chose to be in all these forms. It's all semantics really, however you want to play with words.

__________________
#PrivatizeBCB
#PrivatizeBFF
The end of Rahim will mark a new great beginning for the complacency free Bangladesh!

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol Someone who lived in the forest who believed God is One their whole life without being exposed to Islamic scripture will be saved on the Day of Judgement.

Very convenient!! Now let me ask you this ( through critical reasoning)

How is it that God is so inefficient?
1/ He chose a method to convey his message to his pupil (through prophets) that is highly ineffective and inefficient given that even after more than 1000+ years the message has still not reached everyone.

2/ He decided to create those men/women living in the forest or the arctic regions. If he created men/women to serve him than why create people who will never get his message in the first place?

3/ Why would the message get corrupted with previous prophets? God must know better surely?

4/ What makes you think the message of Islam is not corrupted? I see different sects inside Islam, constant infighting amongst the sects, some even believe that certain sects of Islam (ahmadiya) are non muslims... So surely even islam got corrupted? So the last prophet did a bad job?

5/ Lets say, I go and give the Islamc scripture to the Amazonian tribes or the Inuit, now does that make them sinners if they dont obey? What does exposure entail?

6/I keep on hearing that the scripture is so complicated that it is only to be understood completely through the Islamic scholars... Why would God create a scripture so complicated if it is meant for the masses?

I can again go on and on!! If you use critical reasoning, there are many flaws in religion and the idea of God.

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
People worship rationalisation to such a degree. In Imam Ghazali's "Deliverance From Error" he talks about the Sufis really experiencing Truth. Rationalisation that people use need to be "checked" by something or have a bearing. An Atheist will use rationalisation to try assert God doesn't exist and a Theist will use rationalisation and use induction/deduction to show God exists. They are both using the same means to come to completely different conclusions.

So you have to ask yourself, how do you truly reach Truth? These are conversations that were had by theologians alike for many centuries and many books were written. So when I see random BC members make such blanket statements about religion being false if you are rational and yaddi yadda it is quite laughable to say the least because they choose to be selectively ignorant about topics and subject matters, more than likely their hate is coming from an emotional place rather than a logical one.

Philosophical or rational approach to the existence of God or the veracity of Islam is not the Prophetic method of da'wa. However, I have immersed myself in philosophical readings in these matters because of (1) personal interest/curiosity (2) to intellectually debunk (sometimes and not always because it is often not productive) the claims of the atheists.

With regards to the existence of one God, in my humble opinion, there are many convincing and full proof arguments available - the cosmological argument, the argument from design, the argument from contingency, the argument from moral objectivity and moral oughtness, the argument from the hard problem of consciousness (subjective experience), and so on.

Majority of these arguments are quite strong or at least shows that there is strong intellectual reason to believe in the existence of an all-powerful God instead of rejecting Him. However, despite reading numerous articles and watching countless hours of theism vs atheism debates, I have not come across any atheist who intellectually deconstructed these arguments and provided a logical/intellectual alternative for atheistic worldview. Rather, all atheists, often resort to bullying and dismissing, and conclude with the following:

(1) When they cannot defeat the argument for God's existence or provide an alternative, they say that they agree with the argument, but the conclusion does not necessary has to be God. They say the God of theists is simply the God of the gap whereas they, being atheists, prefer to remain in the state of ‘don’t know’. Atheists claim that not knowing and accepting and being open about not knowing is what drives future research and study whereas the God of the gap hinders this approach.

(2) Despite showing convincing argument for the existence of God, they reject God because they cannot solve the problem of evil. If logical argument points to God's existence, not understanding the problem of evil is not a good ground to reject God.

(3) Being science worshipper they want empirical proof for everything including God’s existence. But they miss a few points (a) God is outside the realm of time space, thus empirical proof is not possible (b) empiricism/science is not the only source of knowledge (c) just because science works does not mean it is true. Science is based on observation. If you observe 1 million white sheep does not mean the 1million+1th sheep will be white.

As for the veracity of Islam and the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh), this is a separate issue. The proof of Islam and Muhammad (pbuh)'s prophethood is so overwhelming that orientalists have tried for centuries to explain away the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) but failed.

Few reasons are:

(1) The prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Numerous of his prophecies came true and are still coming true. How did an imposter from 7th century Arabia make such bold predictions?

(2) The amount of knowledge Islam came with. Quran, hadith, law and jurisprudence, the language of Arabic - are only few sciences. Each science has many divsions and sub divisions and you can become an expert in each sub-division. How is it possible for an unlettered Arab prophet to came up with such vast amount of knowledge out of nowhere?

(3) The perfect theology of Islam. No religion has the more perfect concept of God than that of Islam. This prefect theology is not only demonstrated in concept in Quran but also demonstrated in each and every ritual and prophetic tradition. This consistency is not possible if the Prophet was an imposter.

(4) The very detailed Islamic law. Islamic law is vast as well as very detailed. How did this unlettered Prophet (pbuh) come up with such detailed law?

__________________
Self-respect is the fruit of discipline; the sense of dignity grows with the ability to say no to oneself- AJH| Don’t disrespect your life by living aimlessly – set goals and work hard to attain them.

Originally Posted by aklemalp
My contribution to this thread: I'm a Hindu

finally. not sure how comfortable you are sharing info but I will ask --

1. how diff is hinduism in guyana compared to India? do you adhere to any particular sect and what are the major ones in hinduism?
2. what is your holy book?
3. what is the most fundamental creed of hinduism? (i.e. oneness of God in Islam, accepting Jesus as savior in Christianity).
4. do you guys do holi/durga puja or other religious festivals?
5. is meat not allowed across all hinduism? we know beef is not allowed but I seem some are fully vegan.

Originally Posted by mufi_02
finally. not sure how comfortable you are sharing info but I will ask --

1. how diff is hinduism in guyana compared to India? do you adhere to any particular sect and what are the major ones in hinduism?
2. what is your holy book?
3. what is the most fundamental creed of hinduism? (i.e. oneness of God in Islam, accepting Jesus as savior in Christianity).
4. do you guys do holi/durga puja or other religious festivals?
5. is meat not allowed across all hinduism? we know beef is not allowed but I seem some are fully vegan.

Feels like alot of this could just be googled. Hinduism doesnt have 1 holy book, they have collection of scriptures, with the most prominent the Vedas. Meat is allowed and different hindus have different guidelines. Bengali Hindus eat meat, fish. Some south Indian hindus even eat beef. There is no 1 golden rule.

^literally everything can be found by googling these days. but we all ask anyway on a forum right. its just hard to find unbiased views/opinions in internet esp on religion. thanks for the answers though.

I just wanted to know what is the most fundamental creed of modern hinduism.

Originally Posted by mufi_02
finally. not sure how comfortable you are sharing info but I will ask --

1. how diff is hinduism in guyana compared to India? do you adhere to any particular sect and what are the major ones in hinduism?
2. what is your holy book?
3. what is the most fundamental creed of hinduism? (i.e. oneness of God in Islam, accepting Jesus as savior in Christianity).
4. do you guys do holi/durga puja or other religious festivals?
5. is meat not allowed across all hinduism? we know beef is not allowed but I seem some are fully vegan.

1. how diff is hinduism in guyana compared to India? do you adhere to any particular sect and what are the major ones in hinduism?

Most of what I know is that my foreparents came from different parts of India, and they brought their own to the New World. So along the way, lots of stuff may have been lost in transit/also translation...but there is one thing all tend to gravitate towards. That is Sanatan Dharma . I am not deep into it at all. I follow the traditions and customs. I might be too vague here, but I can't find a better word.

Regarding sects, I know for a fact that there are groups of people whose foreparents came from the part of India called Madras, and they follow the Mother (Durga, Kali, Lakshmi, etc). Since most of my childhood friends were Madrasi, I always go yearly for Kali Puja.
There is International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). The temple was a few villages away from me. I used to go there for every Krishna Janam Ashtmi (birth of Krishna).

2. what is your holy book?

In my village temple, the priest usually read from the Shri Ramcharitamanas and the Bhagavad Gita, the Ved Purans, The Upanishads. As I said earlier, I'm not a keen follower, but I have seen the Ramayan tv show.

3. what is the most fundamental creed of hinduism? (i.e. oneness of God in Islam, accepting Jesus as savior in Christianity).

As stated earlier, It's Sanatan Dharma...eternal bliss. For me, it is mostly that, I tend to follow Buddhism a bit because of this.

4. do you guys do holi/durga puja or other religious festivals?
Yes, and more. We have Shiv Ratra, Ram Nauvmi, Basant Panchmi, Petry Paaksh, etc

5. is meat not allowed across all hinduism? we know beef is not allowed but I seem some are fully vegan. We don't eat beef.

It is allowed (In guyana). But on auspicious days, we fast (not like full blown Ramadan fasting, just stay away from meat and fish). There are some people who I know actually went fully vegan.

******
In closing, I am less religious now than I was 10 years ago. I'm still glued to the culture though. Our unique culture (blended: Guyanese Indian)

Originally Posted by Roey Haque
With Hinduism, you are allowed to go in so many directions, including declaring yourself a Godman! This is a HUGE sin in the abrahamic traditions, but because you are free to question the nature of the truth in Hinduism, you can reach your own conclusions. It is even encouraged. So if you like Ganesha, good for you. If you think you are divine yourself, good for you, if you like atheism (yes, there is even room for atheism in the Vedas), then good for you, if you like Allah(which is just the arabic word for God), then good for you. Seeking and questioning is allowed.

I think you are confusing a more new age Hindu-esque philosophy rather than any widely accepted "orthodox" (for lack of a better word) Hindu dogma. If any belief says "we are open to all beliefs, even those that are directly contradictory" thats not a belief at all. In fact that would be absence of any concrete belief. You can't say everything is acceptable, but eating beef means you can lynched by a mob, because then at least one thing is unacceptable.

The central precept of Hinduism is "truth is one, sages know it by many names". Yes, you are right, Hinduism is far more fluid than rigid Abrahamic faiths. But that doesn't mean its a "we house all ideas" faith.

I don't know much about Hinduism, admittedly. I've tried reading some of the scriptures but its extremely hard to figure out because so many names are dropped and the philosophy goes over my head.

I am finding a lot of people are agreeing with me that Dharmic faiths are more fluid , allow much more questioning/spiritual seeking than the Abrahamic faiths. That was all I was trying to establish. Culture in any form will ofcourse adhere to traditions and repeat itself. So yes, saffron robes, anti-beef propaganda is all there, I get that. But as I found out recently, I think most people underestimate Hinduism in terms of its vastness, just how many ideas it can actually simultaneously hold. It's almost more a philosophy and less a religion. Also from an agnostic pov, with a blank slate as a starting point, which branch of philosophies should I be more drawn to, Dharmic or Abhramic? One which tells me to seek, or one which tells me to submit? It really is interesting when you think of it that way. Seek or submit?

Btw, the six orthodox schools of thought in Hinduism from wiki.

Āstika
There are six āstika (orthodox) schools of thought.[note 3] Each is called a darśana, and each darśana accepts the Vedas as authoritative and the premise that ātman (soul, eternal self) exists.[3][26] The āstika schools are:

Samkhya, an atheistic and strongly dualist theoretical exposition of consciousness and matter.
Yoga, a school emphasising meditation, contemplation and liberation.
Nyāya or logic, which explores sources of knowledge. Nyāya Sūtras.
Vaiśeṣika, an empiricist school of atomism.
Mīmāṃsā, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy.
Vedānta, the last segment of knowledge in the Vedas, or jñānakāṇḍa. Vedānta came to be the dominant current of Hinduism in the post-medieval period.

__________________
#PrivatizeBCB
#PrivatizeBFF
The end of Rahim will mark a new great beginning for the complacency free Bangladesh!

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
There's only one difference between an atheist and a believer: the atheist can actually see his eternal truth whereas the believer can't.

If ask an atheist where the universe came from, they can only say "it always existed". Same with the believer and God(s).

Its just the believer has no evidence and the atheist is already standing on his.

Simply a matter of faith.

There is absolutely no similarity between an atheist/agnostic and a believer. We have completely different thought process. Most of us (agnostics) do not deny the existence of a superior being (creator), we just deny that the creator is what is being described in Abrahamic religion or Hinduism.

If you open another thread to critically analyse Abrahamic religions than I would gladly put forward everything that is wrong with it.

Also an atheist/agnostic never claims that the universe always existed (atleast not to my knowledge). We can explain everything that happened since the planks time (10 ^ -43 sec) after big bang to this very moment. We refuse to use God as an explanation for what happened between 0 and (10^-43s).

There can always be a God/creator but for our universe to exist and be the way it is, a creator is not absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by tonmoy.dhaka
Very convenient!! Now let me ask you this ( through critical reasoning)

How is it that God is so inefficient?
1/ He chose a method to convey his message to his pupil (through prophets) that is highly ineffective and inefficient given that even after more than 1000+ years the message has still not reached everyone.

2/ He decided to create those men/women living in the forest or the arctic regions. If he created men/women to serve him than why create people who will never get his message in the first place?

3/ Why would the message get corrupted with previous prophets? God must know better surely?

4/ What makes you think the message of Islam is not corrupted? I see different sects inside Islam, constant infighting amongst the sects, some even believe that certain sects of Islam (ahmadiya) are non muslims... So surely even islam got corrupted? So the last prophet did a bad job?

5/ Lets say, I go and give the Islamc scripture to the Amazonian tribes or the Inuit, now does that make them sinners if they dont obey? What does exposure entail?

6/I keep on hearing that the scripture is so complicated that it is only to be understood completely through the Islamic scholars... Why would God create a scripture so complicated if it is meant for the masses?

I can again go on and on!! If you use critical reasoning, there are many flaws in religion and the idea of God.

You may think you are critically thinking. But none of the questions epistemologically address if Islam is the Truth or not. Apart from maybe question 4 but even Q. 4 is incoherent cos you trying to deduce that multiplicity of sects equates to corruption to Islam, which is a completely false assumption.

There are so many assumptions in your questions where it is quite evident that you won't be satisfied with any answer.

You think these questions are critically thinking but it is like trying to see a river but all you are seeing is a mirage. You are already holding a position that you don't want to believe in a religion AND then asking these questions.

Even the fact that you are asking these questions and ending on the note of

Quote:

I can again go on and on!! If you use critical reasoning, there are many flaws in religion and the idea of God"

is an assumption that the questions have no answers and if they did have the answers they are wrong, which is actually a belief if you think about it. lol

I hate getting into discussions like these over the internet. It achieves nothing. I prefer to dialogue face to face. Online dialogue is just slinging mud with real no substance, you ask questions, i answer and ask questions to you and so forth. And it just ends up being heated.

Originally Posted by tonmoy.dhaka
There is absolutely no similarity between an atheist/agnostic and a believer. Most of us (agnostics) do not deny the existence of a superior being (creator), we just deny that the creator is what is being described in Abrahamic religion or Hinduism.

If you open another thread to critically analyse Abrahamic religions than I would gladly put forward everything that is wrong with it.

Also an atheist/agnostic never claims that the universe always existed (atleast not to my knowledge). We can explain everything that happened since the planks time (10 ^ -43 sec) after big bang to this very moment. We refuse to use God as an explanation for what happened between 0 and (10^-43s).

There can always be a God/creator but for our universe to exist and be the way it is, a creator is not absolutely necessary.

I'm not talking about the interval between the Big Bang and t = +1 Plank time. What happened before t = 0? For example what existed 1 second before the Big Bang? The atheist might say everything begins with the Big Bang, so there is nothing before it. Thats the same as a believer saying no one created God/Brahma/Allah/Yahweh/etc.

The only difference is that there is evidence to suggest the Big Bang (still unproven), whilst none exists for the existence of God (no reliable scientifically reliable evidence, and hence also unproven).

I'll admit, the atheist/agnostic does tend to be more rational than the believer. But at the core, they are both ultimately going to be reduced to the same type of answer:

"Space time ends at the Big Bang singularity so asking about a where or a time before it is [mathematically] pointless"

"God created everything, so asking who created God is pointless"

Quote:

We have completely different thought process.

Which is proof that you have EXACTLY the same thought process once you strip it down, to the very first thing one can say.

Muslim: We have a completely different thought process.
Jew: We have a completely different thought process.
Christian: We have a completely different thought process.
Buddhist: We have a completely different thought process.
Hindu: We have a completely different thought process.

and

Atheist: We have a completely different thought process.

Its like the saying "unity in diversity" except this would be like "similarity through difference".

No one claims to possess exclusive ownership of truth except the extremely devout and the extremely atheist.

______________

The actual process might be different, sure. But the original input is the same:

Where did the Earth come from?
Atheist: Rock and dust left over from the formation of the solar system.
Devout: God made it.

So where did the solar system come from?
Atheist: Gas and dust left over from seperation of the galaxy.
Devout: God made it.

And where did the galaxies come from?
Atheist: Primordial matter from the Big Bang.
Devout: God made them.

Where did the Big Bang come from?
Atheist: It just happened.
Devout: God, who just happened to happen.

______________

So to conclude. You're right that in everday matters, for example eating pork, the atheist/agnostic is far more rational than the devout (Muslim/Jew won't eat it without giving any scientifically convincing argument while the atheist will eat it if he likes and won't if he doesn't). But when it comes to the most basic question of the origins of the the reality we find outrselves in, both answers are ultimately the same, one just has physical signs and the other is a pure belief.

Faith shouldn't be mistaken for science nor even compared to it. They each have their seperate roles to play in the human experience.

Originally Posted by Roey Haque
One which tells me to seek, or one which tells me to submit? It really is interesting when you think of it that way. Seek or submit?

Well the Quran actually mentions both submission (which is what "islam" means) as well as tafakkur which is usually translated as "reflection" ie critical thought. In fact, if you look at the story of the man himself, Abraham, his earliest ideological tilt is not muslim, Jew, or Christian but as a "Haneef". Some have translated that to mean agnostic, but more accurate might be to just say "seeker".

For example Abraham rejected his people's worship of idols but then transiently thought stars, the moon, or the sun was God (Quran 6:76-78). But he quickly deduced it wasn't.

But going back to the main point of tafakkur (critical thinking, reasoning, "seeking" to use that term), the Quran mentions it in Surah 2:219 in relation to alcohol and gambling. Its not just saying "don't drink or make bets" but saying don't do it, and think about why you shouldn't do it.

Tafakkur is also mentioned in 3:191, 6:50, 7:176, 13:3, and there's quite a few more. There are about 20 different places where the Quran urges its readers to think deeper about whatever topic is in that verse.

I don't think the Quran mentions "submission" 20 times.

So its not accurate to paint Islam as a "read and obey without questioning" ideology although historically the authorities probably preached it that way and modern day extremist groups give that impression. Its like walking into the Knicks locker room and thinking all New Yorkers are 7 feet tall. The Knicks get more press coverage than the average New Yorker, but they aren't examples of what all New Yorkers are like.